Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Paulie Translated

That's the only explanation I can think of as to why he has chosen to reignite the whole 'bloggertarians' brouhaha on his blog thisweek.

I think it's fair to say that the "bloggertarians" won that particular skirmish. Perhaps that's because Paulie's side consists of himself, 3 other Eustonites and 1 "demented ranting wreck" (far-left blogger Voltaire's Priest's words, not mine or DK's!). Or perhaps it's because Paulie is not just wrong, he's thoroughly disingenuous to boot.

To explain just what I mean by that, I give you Paulie Translated: What Paulie says, and what he really means.

OK. First off, from his latest poke at libertarian bloggers, entitled 'Memebots':

"Other examples [of 'memebots'] are, of course, our friends the bloggertarians. Raise a question - any question - and the answer is always 'sack public employees' / 'school vouchers' / 'government can't work' etc. The thick shitheads...In future, I may just delete commenters on the grounds that they are memebots. A one word explanation."

Translation:

People who make propositions that I don't agree with are like robots, and it is beneath me to debate with them

First of all, if I've ever seen anyone in this crazy world we call the blogosphere more deserving of the label memebot it's Paulie's mate, the "pet bottle of cyanide" - Will Rubbish. If ever there was a wanker. Its blog* consists of little other than Youtube embeds and links to/excerpts from Christopher Hitchens' articles. His other favourite pastime is surveying the comments at his group blog, deleting the comments of anyone who isn't in his little Trot club.

But getting back to the point, the examples Paulie uses in the above quote are bizarre. Two are extremely wide-ranging statements that require a significant degree of qualification to be at all meaningful (e.g. "sack incompetent public employees", or "government can't work when hamstrung by having to legislate on the basis of EU directives" are two sensible and accurate statements).

On the other hand, the third ('school vouchers', in case any Eustonites are confused by now) is a summation of a policy that many libertarians support and has been successfully applied elsewhere in the world. Surely you know this, Paulie (after all, it was debated in a thread that you contributed to at your group blog, Drink Soaked Trots). It is also a draft policy of the UK Libertarian Party.

That brings me onto the next translation, this time from the comments thread at Chicken Yoghurt's place. McKeating and I have our disagreements, but this comments thread aptly illustrates the difference between someone who one doesn't quite see eye to eye with, and a complete and utter fuckwit.

"Remind me again, are you for or against representative democracy? Last time we exchanged on this, you thought it was rude of me to suggest that you weren’t keen on democracy, but you seem to be doing it again."

Translation:

Anyone who opposes the (lack of) choice British voters currently have is against democracy (unless of course they're a Marxist social democrat like me).

This one doesn't just take the biscuit, it takes the whole fucking packet and then some more.

Paulie, while clearly not in favour of everything Labour are doing (and, like all good Marxists, considering the Conservatives to be the enemy), has nothing but contempt for someone like DK who actually gets off their backside and sets up a new political party to, yes, advance new policies that are compatible with libertarian ideology and challenge the political mainstream.

Paulie is well aware of this. However, has Paulie, who posted several times before the formation of LPUK that 'bloggertarians' are"just right-wing negativists" and are"'objective allies' of the Tories"** acknowledged this? Of course not. Instead, he goes on to this day with the same old stupid "negativist", "bloggertarian" shit.

Finally, how about a bit of insight into how Paulie thinks (or doesn't)? This time from a related comments thread on his own blog:

"My loose understanding of Will's position is that there is no point in debating patiently with people who don't acknowledge the way that social forces work. It's a position that I'm more sympathetic to now than I was a few weeks ago"

Translation:

If you aren't a Marxist, it is beneath me to talk to you.

Says it all, really. Will, you may recall, is the wanker I bashed earlier, who deletes the comments of anyone who doesn't share his particular worldview.

Well, Will and Paulie, enjoy the fucking shithole you call a blog. But if you think you're going to drag the rest of us down with you, you're very much mistaken.

Unlike your friend, Paulie, over here we don't believe in shutting the other side out of the argument. But if you think you're convincing anyone other than your pathetic, shrinking Eustonite clique you can think again.

* No, I'm not giving this particular prick the pleasure of an in-link from here. Go and Google it if you're really curious, but it's not worth it. Honestly.** This one is mind-blowingly stupid. Did Paulie not notice the attacks on the Conservative Party here at DK's and over at Longrider's blogs, or does he have some kind of selective post-blindness? (If you follow the link associated with this, you might notice that my attitude to Paulie was a bit different back then. Really, this level of venom is not like me, but sometimes you have to call a cunt a cunt.)

24 comments:

There's plenty to get to grips with in this post, not all of which I agree with, but here's something for starters; many of Paulie's criticisms - about "negativism", about pointless sweariness, about a complete lack of any kind of positive agenda - are equally well applied to his fellow DSTFW "Will" as they are to any of we "bloggertarians".

And we don't delete comments without explanation.

I've said it before, and I restate it here now; Will drastically lowers the tone of an otherwise interesting and engaging site. At least we bloggertarians employ a modicum of wit and perspective. "Will" displays neither.

Talking to Marxists and their fellow travellers, I have found, is often a waste of time. No matter how many times they are proven incontrovertibly wrong, they still come back with the same tired old tactics and arguments. In addition they are DULL!

I had this discussion with Paulie last year. His reasoning is flawed as he is attempting to set the agenda for the starting point for any discussion. I am well aware of the social history of this country from pre-Norman times up until the present day, so to suggest that I do not appreciate why we are where we are is not only erroneous, it is patronising in the extreme. I am well aware of why we are where we are; it does not bar any discussion that dissents from the popular viewpoint.

If you asked most people about such things as the Welfare Stare or the NHS, they would, doubtless, think them a positive benefit of the post war years. Indeed, until very recently, so did I. One of the positive benefits of places like this is that it can cause the open minded to question their core beliefs and change their minds.

I have rejected many of my erstwhile beliefs in the face of reasoned argument and the evidence of catastrophic failure that is this government. Socialism is a creed of failure. The evidence is there for everyone to see. It does not work. Whatever one thinks about social democracy, Marxism, Libertarianism et al, the evidence trail is there to follow. The democratic process in this country is broken and there is little that is representative about it. Pointing that out does not make one undemocratic - indeed, quite the opposite.

Peter Horne's link sums up progressives rather well. I always had difficulty putting my finger on it before.

As for Will, there's not much one can say. A two-dimensional, facile lefty version of DK without the wit or the intelligence. So all one is left with is the swearing...

It is a testimony to your true genius that you choose to write a post telling me off for not engaging with people very civilly and for being rude about their stupidity .... on Devil Kitchen's blog. I fear that I haven't really understood *just* how thick a twat you really are.

Commenting on a spat that started with a post that was one long stream of insults and bile (with plenty of footnotes and tags about how stupid I am), I notice that you have only questioned *my* civility and choice of insults. Oh - I love the footnotes to this one, by the way! "Fucking stupid little wankstains"! "Braindead"!

Never complain when anyone calls you an utterly thick shithead again Ian. You just burned your licence.

It is something of a sign of your lack of substance that the only thing you think you can land a punch on me for is the fact that I occasionally write on a group blog that Will also writes on (3 or 4 posts in 18 months or so! We're practically the same person are we?).

Once again, you didn't understand what I said about our Will, did you? When I said...

"My loose understanding of Will's position is that there is no point in debating patiently with people who don't acknowledge the way that social forces work. It's a position that I'm more sympathetic to now than I was a few weeks ago"

I was explaining what I *think* HIS position is - not mine (though - as I said at the time, I'm beginning to think he has a point when I find myself in arguments like this one).

Your translations (the main point of this post I think?) are inaccurate because you just don't understand what I'm saying. And that may be that I'm not phrasing it very well, or it may be that you are too thick to understand it. I must say though, that plenty of people who don't agree with me on much have understood this point and not had any problems with it.

If you think that the LPUK setting up a political party (with DK as communications officer!) isn't negativism as I described the word, you are beyond help. But let me try:

"We have serious proposals to make - ones that are more than just a narcissistic blaming of everyone else for the ills of society. We are going to start a political party to make our case in a democratic way. And we are going to appoint a ridiculous cartoon character as our communications officer."

Surely you see my point now? If not, I'm not explaining this one to you any more - I've got far too many examples of you appearing in comments threads under my posts asking for fairly simple stuff to be clarified EVEN more.

Let's take your understanding of my 'memebots'. Here, I write a post. It's long. You may think it's boring - I do. I need an editor - I'll admit that. It goes all over the place across a number of subjects. I write on my blog often to clarify my own thoughts as much as anything else. And it's a post that I don't expect much agreement from right-wing libertarians on. But *every* time I write stuff like this, I get a comment or three from someone like the second commenter on that post. Unargued assertion. Stream thereof. Only found on the Internet as far as I can see.

Oh - by the way - I love all these declared victories here. Here's one for Peter Horne - on the whole 'negativism' argument, do feel free to show my any single argument in there that was directed at me that went unanswered? I was quite pleased with the way the whole discussion went in the end.

And - finally - on your question of democracy: I argue (ad nauseam) that the only sustainable form of democracy is representative democracy, and that this is largely in opposition to direct democracy. Libertarians are generally much more well disposed to direct democracy than the representative variety. They (libertarians) sometimes acknowledge this and argue for it.

And they (bloggertarians) sometimes just hope that no-one raises the question because they don't really understand it anyway . If you think that our expression of individual liberty and the mechanisms that are driven by the choice of traders should be the main mechanisms that govern our behaviour and that of others, then you are - de facto - not arguing for representative democracy to be given much scope. You are - de facto - arguing for a form of direct democracy.

In the massively unlikely chance that LPUK will ever make any headway, representative democracy would not have a very bright future. And I really doubt if many people who understand libertarianism would disagree with this. But, as I've said before Ian, I don't think you understand very much about anything because you are braindead stupid little fucking wankstain*.

*When you tore up your licence to complain about insults like that, you also handed me a licence to use them on you.

It really doesn't matter what you think Will's position[1] is. The point is that it is outrageous hypocrisy to write posts lambasting foul-mouthed, incoherent, Bloggertarians (who are constantly poisoning the debate and calling everyone who disagrees with them a "cunt") on a website run by a foul-mouthed, incoherent, Blarxist[2] (who is constantly poisoning the debate and calling everyone who disagrees with him a "cunt").

If representative democracy was a product, we would all be asking for our money back. It is certainly not Representative. Even putting to one side the little matter of a government formed from a minority of the popular vote; we elect a representative every four to five years who then toddles off to Westminster in order to represent the wishes of their party, irrespective of the wishes of their constituents.

Having tried, vainly, to engage my MP on a number of the more authoritarian issues proposed by this egregious administration, I realise that what many local people say about him is true - he treats dissenters with contempt. Now, there's a surprise, a Labour politician who treats constituents who disagree with him with contempt. He most certainly does not represent me.

Representative democracy; the system that manages to disenfranchise millions at a stroke. You will forgive me if, while recognising that this is, at best, the least worst option, I have no enthusiasm for it.

Your 'least worst' option conclusion is one I'd agree with. Most of the products that I buy are generally the 'least worst' ones. (When they invent a loaf of bread that does blow-jobs as well, I'll stop buying Sunblest).

The only bit I disagree with you on is the 'money back' one. I have to have bread from somewhere.

I think that you'll find that - when governments loose their representative character (even by small degrees as this one has) they become a lot more illiberal.

(I did a long rambling post on this a while ago if you're interested?)

But, LR, I'd be interested to see what sort of alternative you would like to see - and do you think that it would be less liberal, or more?

One of my arguments with right-ish libertarians is that the 'thin end of the wedge to totalitarianism' arguments falls down - as long as democracy retains its representative character. When pressure groups or the media start to be able to push politicians around, it all starts to fall down a bit.

A start would be more power devolved to a local level - then the electors would have a fighting chance of holding their representatives to account. That, frankly, does not happen at the moment. Lobbying one's MP is merely pissing in the wind. I'd also like to see greater opportunity for independent candidates who are not bound by the party system - again, at a local level this is more likely to happen with lower campaigning costs and smaller constituencies.

Would it be more liberal or not? I really don't know...

What I do know is that what we currently have most certainly is not liberal and is becoming less so with each new announcement on the War on Terror - or whatever pathetic excuse is the raison du jour.

Addendum; local democracy in France works very well - the Mayor is directly elected and carries a fair amount of personal power. So, what would I like to see? Something akin to what every small town and village in France has would be nice...

I think that politicians having lower campaigning fund, perversely, causes more centralisation though (but explaining that would be a long-ish one).

You will find about 50 posts agreeing with you on this - under the decentralisation tag on my blog:

http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/search/label/Decentralisation

The key thing, I think, for libertarians (and this is where I agree with a lot of left-libertarians) is to acknowledge the centralisation has causes. Remove the causes, and there is a chance that you can get what you want.

"If representative democracy was a product, we would all be asking for our money back. It is certainly not Representative. Even putting to one side the little matter of a government formed from a minority of the popular vote; we elect a representative every four to five years who then toddles off to Westminster in order to represent the wishes of their party, irrespective of the wishes of their constituents."

I've deliberately kept out of this debate, lest it descend back into personal abuse again (it's been a lot more measured than I expected!)

But I'm putting my head back through the door again to suggest that the subject of my latest post here is a prime example of what Longrider is talking about here (which you won't be surprised to read that I agree with).

Why, Paulie? Is it because, unlike my family, your lot were too fucking thick to earn any money and so utterly stupid and short-sighted that they failed to save or invest what pathetic bits they may have had left over? Still, it's good to see that you have inherited your family's paucity of thought.

DK

P.S. If you think that this attack on your relatives is ill-informed, prejudiced and otherwise unwarranted, you might consider that you started it, you thick cunt.

Where did I say I had a "respect for representative democracy" (as it currently operates)?

In fact didn't I just a few comments above express my agreement with Longrider when he said: "If representative democracy was a product, we would all be asking for our money back. It is certainly not Representative."

One of the main reasons for that is that our elected representatives far too often display the behaviour I excoriated Boris Johnson for in the latest post, i.e. making bold promises to the electorate prior to election and then finding ways to weasel out of them once they're elected.